The following is copied and pasted from the Introduction section of the Libertarian Party website: "Tolerant - The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way."
Libertarians4Freedom seems quite intolerant. He (or she) might have a hard time tolerating this observation.
You know, I was talking to an acquaintance the other day who told me that it was a generally accepted Christian principle that babies and young children who died or were killed would automatically go to heaven and therefore her take on abortion was that all aborted babies would go straight to heaven without ever having to experience any of the potentially horrible things that befall humans during their life on earth like sexual abuse, hunger, poverty, assault, depression, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam. She said if they all were born and grew up, any number of them might go to hell instead. Wow, kinda made me think.
It really upsets me that so many are so judgmental of Ann Coulter. I think we can stop all this Coulter nonsense by agreeing on at least one thing about her: nice knockers.
Hey, thanks for giving me the last word, Rolando. Yeah, I've met a lot of Marines; typically good men. Typically, of course, is the key word. This whole thing was about dogs and you misconceptions about animal behavior. I initially offered reasoned, evidence-based retort to unsubstantiated claims driven by fear and ignorance. Then I finally got fed up with your display of cognitive dissonance and decided to rattle your chain. That was a hoot. However, it was rude and I apologize to all the other reasonable people who read my initial offerings. I got a little caught up in having fun. I really have no idea whether or not you are an Alpha and I don't care. You have proved however that logic and reason do not necessarily sway your opinions. You make the case for sanctions against dogs and/or their owners based on "empirical" evidence, yet you indicate by your writing that you are a gun owner. There is plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that many, many lives could be saved by eliminating the possession of firearms by the general public, but I am sure that empirical evidence is meaningless to you. I imagine you will retort to this, even though you have granted me the last word, by claiming your 2nd Amendment right, while there is no constitutional right to "bear bulldogs." Nevertheless, and I say again, the preemptive, arbitrary punishment of animals or their owners based on statistical evidence that can be quite misleading without the necessary depth of understanding is UN-AMERICAN! I also say again, PROVE that bulldogs are inherently more aggressive regardless of their comparative numbers or the way they have been handled or trained. It's all about the people, not the dogs. I leave you with this final thought: You claim, "Instinct overcomes training every time." Not true. Men can be trained to kill quite efficiently against their instinct. Men can be trained to overcome their willingness/ability to reason and feel. Men are not born with the instinct to kill unless they are "bad seeds." It has been proven time and time again that dogs can be trained to overcome their instincts as well. Thanks again for the last word.
Glad I could offer some levity, Rolando, to what I suspect is an otherwise melancholy existence. Your response was what I expected. A plate full of psychological projection. I didn't come back killing every snake and spider that I saw and bamboo doesn't scare me at all. My serious professional help says I'm getting better all the time; thanks for your concern.
Rolando - I've had an epiphany regarding your illogical insistence that pit bulls are born killers. I'm thinking that perhaps you are not an "Alpha" male type and are therefore extremely fear-based in your decision making processes. It could be genetic. The brief cite of your uncle who "killed them [Dobermans] on sight through the 1970s" also seems to indicate that he was a man ruled by fear; quite possibly a paratrooper by conscription and forced to jump out of airplanes. The indiscriminate killing of any animal speaks to cowardice at best and pathology at worst. The preceding, of course, is only conjecture on my part and is not intended to insult or demean you or your uncle. It is what it is. I apologize in advance if you take offense. Just one man's take on what might motivate another man's opinions. Not all men are Alphas and that's OK.
OK, Rickaroo... the website to which you refer was founded by a woman who was attacked by a dog she claims was a pit bull. She, like Sarah Brady (re: handguns), has a strong, biased motivation for her opinions. I feel sorry for the woman. I just don't agree with her stance. I just perused at length the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence website. I assume that if you do the same your next post will express your opinion that handguns should be banned. I also took a look at MADD's website and found that 31% of all traffic fatalities in TN are the result of drunk driving. Therefore, I can only assume that you would be in favor of banning alcohol. Also, the CDC reports: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States." Since your pit bull information on dogsbite.org relies, in part, on CDC data, I assume you would also advocate for the banning of all cigarettes, cigars and pipe smoking. I could go on ad nauseam, however, by now I hope you're wrapping your brain around what I am attempting to impart. You, and others, advocate the preemptive punishment of dog owners based on your opinions and certain studies. What's wrong with that picture in America? What's the real issue here? Is it the sanctity of life? If so, then you and the others who share your opinion about bulldogs have no choice but to advocate for the banning of firearms, alcohol, tobacco and bathtubs. This notion of punishing the masses due to the irresponsibility of the few is totally un-American and is based in fear, not reality.
Rolando - I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that the "evidence" to which you refer is in fact empirical. I do not disagree with you, however, relative to the dog being shot. Had the dog's owner been shot a long time ago, the whole thing could have been prevented. I am not attempting to change your mind. I really care little about your opinions; and I don't mean that disrespectfully, I just don't care. What I do care about is unsubstantiated assertions. Read my post to Rickaroo. I don't usually get involved in posting in response to a story, I just get tired of the bias, ignorance and invalid opinion that seems to dominate the mindsets of so many. I have suggested two studies in my writing that refute the stereotypical opinions surrounding bulldogs and I have spoken to the fact that statistics can be very misleading if not looked at with depth and understanding. All I get from you is your suggestion that news stories constitute "empirical" evidence. Show me a fair study that proves that the Bully breeds are more aggressive than all other breeds. Don't tell me they kill more people that do Pekinese dogs; any moron knows that. PROVE that they are inherently more aggressive regardless of their comparative numbers or the way they have been handled or trained. It's all about the people, not the dogs.
To Rickaroo I would suggest the old saying popularized by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." One must go far beyond the simple statistical data supplied by the studies to which Rickaroo alludes. Of course large breeds like Rottweilers, bulldogs, German Shepherds and Dobermans are the ones that statistically kill more people but that does not equate to them being the most aggressive breeds. Can you imagine Toy Poodles being attributed with the most fatal attacks? Since Rickaroo likes statistics here are some more from CBS News: "“A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don’t show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. There were a high number of fatal bites from Doberman pinschers in the 1970s, for example, because Dobermans were very popular at that time and there were more Dobermans around, and because Dobermans’ size makes their bites more dangerous. The number of fatal bites from pit bulls rose in the 1980s for the same reason, and the number of bites from Rottweilers in the 1990s. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting.”
There are a significant number of variables associated with any dog attack that must be considered before one simply decides, based on statistics, that an entire breed should be euthanized. Utilizing Rickaroo's logic one could easily make the case for outlawing all firearms, all alcohol sales and even the use of automobiles. Rickaroo also has also asserted that "The vast majority of people who like and own pit bulls are rednecks and others with some serious insecurities about their manhood. In their minds a gun, a pickup, the rebel flag, and pit bull or rottweiler are all they need in life to make 'em a man." Wow, Rickaroo! Any credibility you may have had went straight down the toilet with that revealing remark. Someone once suggested to me that rednecks were narrow minded, judgmental people who tended to use pejorative terms when describing others. Just sayin'...
Rickaroo and frequently many others seemingly forget about the human factor relative to canine behavior. Dog ownership, just like gun or auto ownership comes with significant responsibility. It makes no more sense to indict an entire breed of dog due to irresponsible human behavior than it does to do away with any number of other animate or inanimate objects which, when not responsibly handled, can lead to the injury or deaths of innocent people.
Rolando - I'm not ignoring anything. Repeated stories do not scientific evidence make. You want to offer up news stories to prove a point and yet minimize what scientific study illustrates. It is not I who am displaying ignorance.